the war of 1812 created many political differences within the budding nation. First of all, many of the states, specifically Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, were completely against going to war. This was exemplified with the Hartford Convention, when these three states threatened to secede from the Union. On the other hand, the war hawks in the Western States and territories fought venerably to go to war with Britain. They were completely single minded and wanted to get more land for themselves. The war hawks believed that a win against Britain would give them land in Canada, as well as farther west, because it would restrict the Indian allies of the british. Also, political divisions stemmed directly form the war of 1812. Those outspokenly opposing the war were the federalists, because they believed, relistically speaking, that America could not win against a powerhouse such as Great Britain. Flipping over the branch, the Democratic-Republicans argued that America would gain immense amounts of land and money from winning such a war. In the end, the Federalists were completely wrong, and their party faded away with the aftershock of the war.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

The war of 1812 highlighted previous regional disagreements and created compleatly new divisions. Before the war started there was a sharp divide in congress in between those in favor and those opposed to the war. The young hot headed representatives from the south and west were severly nationalistic and craved a war to once again disgrace there old enimies, England. New England however with more traditional and federalist representatives favored a peace or at least for the U.S. not to be involved. This showed how the traditional north south dissaggrements were made more complicated by the incoming teritories from the west and the extreamly colse vote in congress on the matter of war shows how the new states to the west have the power to swing the vote on issues. The issues of the war of 1812 also for the first time brought up the issue of secession which foreshadows the divide that occurs during the civil war.

During the beginning of Madison's presidency, hot- tempted young men were taking over Senate and Congress. They, being the new generation, wanted a war of their own. Madison had already put the United States in a bad position between France and Britain. These young "war hawks" who were mainly from the South and West ( oddly) wanted maritime rights and were willing to fight for them. They saw British as the encouraging and aiding partner of the Natives attacking them in the West and also as the evil party mistreating their sailors. Middle and Northern officials while not fans of impressment had learned to live with it and were not ready to have a war with Britain over it, considering they would take the brunt of it. The " war hawks" desperately wanted Canada but the Federalists, fearing that the Jeffersonian Republicans would receive a large vote boost from accquisting Canada, strongly disapproved. The vote on whether to go to war or not was so close it revealed the depth of the political and regional divisions. The " war hawks" wanted war and almost all the others ( although a slight minority and for different reasons) wanted no war.

The War of 1812, although created and emphasized regional and political divisions within the United States, eventually formed a heightened sense of nationalism. The decision to go to war was a greatly divided one. While the agricultural and, consequently, Southern states gently embraced the idea of conquering Canada, the seafaring New England region deeply rejected it, believing more agrarian states would increase the power of the Jeffersonian Republicans. New England during the war generously helped the British by lending money, sending supplies to Canada, and alerting blockades of escaping American ships. Furthermore, the Hartford Convention, which united New England states in a convention to discuss grievences and seek redress for wrongs, created a sense of treason within those states from the Republicans.Despite these great divisions between Federalists and Republicans, the war ended with a great sense of national unity. Culture developed and the wonders of America was celebrated in many ways, including finance. This resulting nationalism was much more powerful than the political and regional divisions.

The War of 1812 highlighted the political and regional divisions within the nation by showing the contrast in opinions about the war. A little more than half of the delegates of the senate and the house wanted to go to war, and a little bit less did not. Most of these delegates that were against the war were federalists, because that was the party's opinion of it. The war was also fought very poorly, because not enough effort went into it by all of the states. As a result of the poor fighting, the war ended as a draw in the treaty.

The War of 1812 emphasized the divisions of American society both politically and on a personal basis. This war was widely divided mainly because it did not have the support of the general American public. At this point in time, there was a large disunity among Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. The Democratic-Republics had an anti-British standpoint and supported the war, as compared to the Federalists who supported Britain anwere against the war. The Democrat-Republicans supported an agricultural economy, as opposed to the Federalist industrial economy. This caused the parties to be disunited on the issue of taking Canada(which would be one of the spoils of the war). Federalists feared that if Canada was taken, then the agricultural economy would increase too rapidly and the United States would fail. These two parties had a close to equal support within the states, thus causing the population to be divided.

The War of 1812 highlighted the political and regional divisions within the nation since the declaration of war was voted on in the House and Senate in June of 1812, splitting Americans through the dispute of whether to go to war or not. Through insisting, militant war hawks, the declaration of war was proposed and voted on in 1812. The close results of the poll revealed national disunity, since Representatives from the northern and middle states preferred not to go to fight because impressment was wrong and that a free sea was essential to their economy, while the western and southern states opposed; this showed the divisions between regions debating the war. Eventually, defiant New Englanders supported the British, also a factor of national disunity that divided the states. Furthermore, the dispute between Federalists and Republicans heightened due to the fact that Federalists opposed the acquisition of Canada, giving the Republicans a political advantage in strength if states were added from the territory. However, the Treaty of Ghent, which cased the war and restored maritime peace in 1814, coupled with the Hartford Convention raised a sense of nationalism in the states after Sectionalism was discredited, thus temporarily unifying the states once again. Overall, the War of 1812 highlighted the political and regional divisions within the nation ever since war was proposed, which caused Americans to dispute over the folly or discretion of war and to deal with it politically or locally.

During the War of 1812, the country was divided politically and regionally by their ideals about the war. The “war hawks” from the West and the South had expansionist theories and sought control over the northern and western lands of the U.S.New England was against the war because of the increased amount of Pro- British Federalists residing there who were against gaining new territory because there would be an increase in Democratic Republicans in new territories. They also disliked the fact that the Southern states had friendly relations with France, whom the Northerners disliked. The Federalists from New England began to help the British by lending them money. The Southerners began to distrust the New Englanders. The line was slowly drawn between the North and the South.

During the War of 1812, many weakness were exposed in the American government. With attacks coming from many different regions, it crippled the small scattered inexperienced American military. Proving a federal military, or an increase in the state militia was very needed. Another conclusion which came from the varied attack points was that the Americans were going to finally move west, however the war did not help settle the dispute between Americans and Native Americans, because no land was gained or lost during the war, and the Native Americans were left out of the eventual peace settlement between England and America.

A Young predominantly South and West Congress was established during Madison's reign. They wanted a taste of war, and "Free trade and Sailors rights". They saw the British Orders of Council, rightly as something that was oppressing the nation. However because they were impatient they dealed with this problem badly. They wanted to wipe out the Indian threat-a threat that was attatched to the British. Federalist New England condemned the war, and even funded the British. They perceived that if Canada was acquired then the voting strength of Jeffersonian Republicans would be increased. They did not agree fighting along side the "anti-christ of that age" Napoleon. They also felt that impressment was wrong. One could go as far to say that America, through fighting this war, were fighting New England and Old England (Taylor, 230)

The war of 1812 strongly exemplified political and economic divisions in the United States in several ways. First, the decision to go to war was hotly debated and argued over. The votes in congress were unprecedentedly close, which shows how pointed the debate and the political sides were. As for economics, it was largely an industrial debate. Those who owned small subsistence farms or small export farmland did not want to fight the war of 1812. The demonstration of power that was the reason for the War of 1812 was not a necessity to them. However, there were some entrepreneurial frontiersman that wanted British Canada for frontier work. This is a subdivision within a preexisting division, further showing the rift in the country. The Frontier was not the only place of division. New England, a shipping epicenter wanted to fight for a free sea and damned the War of 1812. But many people, evidently, still wanted to crush Great Britain and finish them off in the America's once and for all.

The war of 1812 stands as testament to political and regional differences within the nation. On one hand, Federalists populated much of the northern or New England states, whereas on the other hand, Democratic Republicans lived in much of the South and Southwestern states.The twos' beliefs were also extremely different. Federalists believed that war would substantially worsen political divisions and relations with their rivals, the "Jeffersonians", as shown in their willingness to help the British by supplying materials to prevent war. However, Democratic-Republicans were pro-war, for it would help in their increase of power by, say, gaining land in Canada.Not only were they divided through political beliefs, but also regional differences, which created a perfect concoction for CONFLICT!

Leading up to and during the War of 1812, divisions between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (political rifts), and eventually the Northern and Southern/Southwest states (regional rifts) became blatantly clear. The Federalists attempted to avoid all conflict, and were anti-war, whereas the Democratic-Republicans completely supported the war. Federalists also feared the acquisition of Canada; they worried that the new territory would provide the Democratic-Republicans with more power. Federalists made up most of the Northern states, whereas more of the Southern/Southwest states were major Jeffersonians, and the tension between the Northern and Southern states continued.

The War of 1812 strongly accentuated the political and regional differences within the nations, the central problem stemming from the tension between the federalist of New England and The Democratic-Republicans dispersed throughout the rest of the nation. The chief conflict based in political beliefs, which both sides were willing to fight for. There were even harsh debates on the subject whether to go to war or not, furthering the political differences. Federalists would even supply the British to prevent war. Threats of secession by New England states were loud; Britain immediately exploited these divisions, blockading only southern ports for much of the war and encouraging smuggling, intensifying regional and political incongruities. Such disunity would eventually cause the Hartford Convention in 1814 as federalists explained their grievances. But this convention was eventually revealed as treason, showing even as one side was trying to solve things, the other would simply condemn them for trying to do so.

The War of 1812 strongly demonstrated the great political and regional divisions within the nation. It showed how torn the Federalists, which were based in New England, and the Democrats, which were placed throughout the rest of the country, were on political issues great enough to cause war. The votes in the House and Senate that decided whether or not the nation should go to war were so close that it further exemplified the great struggle for power in the government. Throughout the war, Federalists in New England did everything in their power to sabotage the war movement and even brought up the idea of succession from the rest of the states. The federalists feared adding more fertile land would lead to greater agriculture and thus would create more supporters for the Democractic-Republicans. The Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were torn on whether or not to go to war based on political, economic, and regional differences above anything else.

Political and regional divisions between New England and the rest of the United States, federalists and democrats came to a peak during the War of 1812. The Nations existence was threatened by the conflict of prowar Jeffersonians, democrats and also known as war hawks, versus antiwar federalists. Because most of the Federalists were located in New England there was also a regional division and some of them even proposed succession from the Union. Their resentment towards war was so strong that some of them even lent money to the British exchequer and New England farmers sent huge quantities of supplies to and foodstuffs to Canada, enabling British armies to invade New York. This was a peak in division, because States were working against each other and indirectly fighting a war within the U.S. Another highlight was the Harford Convention, where Federalists tried to express their grievances and complaints about the war to the government. Because of Macdonough’s and other victories the War of 1812 was not viewed in such a bad light and the Hartford Convention was seen as treachery and a death dirge for the Federalist Party.

The war of 1812 and its effects underlined fierce political and regional divisions that had been building for a long period of time. In June of 1812, when the U.S. declared war on Britain, these divisions were already clear before the war even began. The close votes for either side showed how different regions supported opposite goals--representatives from the middle Atlantic states and commercial areas strongly opposed the war whereas the West and southwest supported the war. Because compromise could not be made, the regional tensions increased. Also, the political parties differed in their views on the war. Federalists opposed the war and feared the acquisition of Canada, which would add fertile land and strenghten support for the Democratic -Republicans, who supported the war. These political and regional divisions, which stemmed largely from each side having opposing views on what would benefit them the most, were evident even before the war of 1812. However, by the time the war came around, the divisions were prominent in many aspects of American life--political, geographic, economical, and were foreboding signs of eventual conflict.

The War of 1812 outlined the extreme political and regional divisions within the United States. The political disunity was demostrated with the vote to go to war within the House and Senate because it was so incredibly close. The West and the Southwest, having a lot of war hawks, regions were the main advocates for war, whereas the federalist nothern states were largely against the hostilities. The opposition to war by New England was taken to new extremes once the war was underway. New Englanders believed that impressment was a past, extremly over exaggerated wrong. They also condemed sympathy towards Napoleon who they viewed very negatively. Another one of the main reasons for the resentment towards the war felt by New Englanders was the acquisition of Canada, which they felt would increase the voting power of their rival political party, the Democratic Republicans. Because of all of these negative feelings towards the war the people of New England felt no need to aid their country, it even got to the point of hurting the chances of an American victory. New England governors would not allow the states militia to fight outside of their state, and farmers sent supplies to the British by way of Canada. All of these actions show how this war brought political disunity among the States to an all new high. There were so many internal conflicts that there was virtually no chance of an American victory. This war also brought fourth ideas of secession, this was manifested in the Hartford Convention. Overall this war, which should have been a time for unity, really outlined the extremes that the opposing political views would go to in order to benefit themselves.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

The War of 1812 was fought between U.S. and England. Ending in 1815 with Treaty of Ghent, the war did not complish any issue it was being fought for. Also at the start of the war, America was unprepared for such a conflict. When the war began, it seems a justified cause for American to address grievances toward the British, however not all citizens shared the same sens of unity about the political issues the war was fought over. The US was upset about impressment of American sailors into British Navy and seizures of American merchant trading vessels by British. Another reason the U.S. wished go the war with Britain was because they dealing with the Indian of West. The British was not only trading with Indians, they were alos giving them weapons adn encouraging them to attack America settlement. Even these were the causes the nation was supposely fighting for, entire nation lacked a major force to gain restitution for them.Also consequently war had arosed resentments upon on certain group. New England damned the war for a free sea, as it would cut down their profitable shipping business. And impressment was an exaggerated wrong: New England shippers and manufacturers were still raking in money, taking the profit. A war with Britain would definitely leave many of the planters, merchants with extensive idle inventories of product. The Federalist also had great apprehension towards the war. At the time, the Federalist was a dying party, partly because their lose in the power of government. And Jeffersonia Republican would increase the voting strength, particularly because most Canadian were common workers, not aristocrats who trying in vain to keep the Federalist as an assertive party in America politics. Because these apprehensions toward the war, the citizens were unable to unite and join together to support the war on around them.

A large part of the disunity in the nation during the War of 1812 was due to the fact that the New England states prospered during that time. New Englanders thought that the issue of impressment was old news and exaggerated, and they sided with England while disliking the nation's sympathy for Napoleon. The Federalists also disliked the war, because conquering Canada would mean more states added to the Northwest, strengthening the power of the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans. This led to the treasonous acts of supplying the enemy with food and supplies in huge portions, lending money to the enemy, and even alerting the enemy when American ships were about to escape. There was talk about a secession from the nation, or having a separate peace with England. The disunity within the nation was so strong that the New England states held the Hartford Convention in 1814. However, just as they were about to make their demands, the news of the Treaty of Ghent arrived, and the Hartford Convention was exposed to the public as treason. But the talk of sucession in the northern states still dominated more than any other section until 1815.

Friday, October 19, 2007

The War of 1812 mainly emphasized all of New England's political divisions; two main groups derived from America's disunity, Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. This is otherwise known as sectionalism, and beliefs in different ideas led to this.

Thomas Jefferson remained a huge part of American disunity: accentuating his many mistakes in American fate. His inexperience in leading a country into democracy formed many negative ideas about America, such as Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807. This law forbade the export of all goods from the United States, whether in American or in foreign ships. Jefferson underestimated the power of Great Britain and overestimated its dependence on American exports. The Republicans hurt the commerce of New England, which they were ironically trying to protect. The Federalists were entirely secluded from all American and European affairs, appropriately the ones who think Jefferson mad. However, Federalists are building their own faction at this time of turmoil, and increases the level of disunity between both parties. They gained new converts, and its leaders hurled nullification of the embargo into Washington. The discredited Federalists in 1804 had polled only 14 electoral votes out of 176; in 1808, the embargo year, the figure rose to 47 out of 175. This event generally strengthened tensions between America and Britain, but at the same time, added heat between internal policy.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

I've been studying everything that our class has gone over in the past few days, but about tomorrow's quiz, will the topics be onmly what we have discussed in class, or will it include all of our reading, including that which we have not discussed in class?thank you

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The development of U.S. political parties in the 1790’s was an effect of debate between Jefferson and Hamilton on the subject of commerce. Hamilton suggested a national treasury, modeled around the Bank of England, to have the federal government as a major stockholder, create cash flow to businesses, store money, and create a worthy currency. He wanted to use the economic debt to unify society, produce customs duties, and remove taxes, largely affecting whiskey trade. He hoped to not only shape the developing economy, but politics as well by veering from the constitution. Jefferson mainly believed banks should be controlled by the state, opposing Hamilton. Jefferson disagreed with Hamilton, saying his policies encroached on the Constitution and state's rights. Both Jefferson’s and Hamilton’s views became very well known and understood. The personal conflict between the two men evolved into a full political competition. Since the dispute was so thoroughly embedded in the basic understanding and operation of the state, formal committed political groups began to appear in Congress consequently creating political parties.

During the 1790s, the two main political figures were Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, the secreatary of Treasury and the Secretary of State respectively, and these two men were the greatest factors towards the creation of political parties. While in presidency, the politically weak-minded George Washington created the cabinet system, with Hamilton and Jefferson being the most influential of the pack. Both had radically different ideas, and these arguments spawned the political parties of the times. First of all, to put some labels on people, Hamilton was a Federalist and Jefferson was anti-Federalist. This for the most part means that Hamilton believed in a strong central government and that Jefferson advocated a federal government that complimented the state governments. Secondly, Hamilton believed that the Conbstitution, especially the elastic clause, gives the government the power to do whatever is necessary, whereas Jefferson backed-up a more literal interpretationof the Constitution. This led to one of the two's most heated topic, whether or not the federal government should be able to create a Federal bank. Hamilton argued that a Federal bank is necessary to collect taxes, which the Constitution is given the right to do. On the other hand, Jefferson argued that the Constitution does not specifically supply the privelege ot the government to create a Federal Bank. It was only a little while before Hamilton and Jefferson had forged their own political parties behind their ideals; Hamilton with his Federalists and Jefferson with his Democratic-Republicans. In conclusion, the quarrels of Jefferson and Hamilton were the greatest contributions to the creation of plitical parties within the American governing system.

A large conflict between Thomas Jefferson's and Alexander Hamilton's opposing views led to the creation of seperate political parties. Alexander Hamilton's taxes and interpretation of the constitution caused great conflict in the government and, overall, the country. His taxes, such as the whiskey tax, were disputed by Jefferson because he believed them to be unfair and Hamilton's national bank caused more conflict between the two. Hamilton's National bank dealt with all the debts of each state, a system that Jefferson opposed greatly. Hamilton's view of the constitution, which is portrayed in "the elastic claws" was one that stated that the constitution was a guideline on how to run the country. Jefferson did not believe in straying from the constitution and believed in strictly following it. These vastly different views on such large subjects led to the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists officially becoming parties.

Monday, October 15, 2007

Crucial factors that contributed to the gradual development of political parties in the U.S. during the 1790's relied on the violent heads under the president: Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. In 1791, the Bill of Rights, known as the Ten Amendments, were formed. Hamilton set out immediately to correct the economic vexations that had crippled the Articles of Confederation, which was to shape the policies of the administration to favor wealthier groups. In exchange, they would lend the government money and moral support. This new federal regime would thrive, and propertied classes would fatten, and prosperity would trickle down to the masses. The first tariff law, imposing a low tariff of about 8% on the value of dutiable imports, was passed by the first Congress of 1789. Hamilton argued strongly in favor of more protection for the well-to-do manufacturing groups. As the first step of his financial system, Hamilton proposed a Bank of the United States. He specifically posed a powerful private institution, of which the government would be the major stockholder and in which the federal Treasury would deposit its surplus monies. Jefferson argued against the bank; he insisted that no specific authorization in the Constitution for such a financial holder. He was convinced that all powers not grants to the central government were reserved to the states, as provided in the about-to-be-ratified Bill of Rights. He therefore concluded that the states, not Congress, had power to charter banks. This marked the beginning of political parties; also further known as National Republicans and Democratic-Republicans. These groups continued to fight, and were widely remembered by two men: Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.

A conflict between individuals as well as ideals lead to the formation of two seperate political parties in the 1790's. Alexander Hamilton, Tresury Secretary under George Washington was the cause for many of the divides within congress which latter lead to the formation of two political parties. Hamiltons contriversal economic polocies such as his increase of taxes on wiskey and his creation of a Bank of America disaggreed with other members of congress and pocibly with the constitution. Hamiltons most notable foe was Secretary of state Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson belived that Hamiltons polocies were unconstitutional and went against the basic principles of republicanism. It was due to these differences that Jefferson and his supporters eventually created their own party known as the Democrat- Republicans in comparicson to Hamiltons traditional Federalists.

The factors of the formation of political parties in the 1790s included Alexander Hamilton's excise taxes, the disputes over how the constitution was to be read, and the federal bank. Because of the new national debt, these excise taxes were very necessary, but many people did not want to pay for them. Jefferson did not want to have a federal government because he believed that banks were to be left to the states, but because Hamilton was more persuasive in his arguments to Washington, he won.

The main factor that contrbuted to the development of political parties in the United States duning the 1790's were the conflicting views of Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary, and the Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson.Hamilton's main goal was to correct the enormous debt imposed on the nation because of the Articles of Confederation. Hamilton seeking additional revenue to the national government aksi secure and excise tax on domestice iteams. This action was strongly opposed, this is what caused the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania which directly caused many people to condem teh federalists shows of force and this caused a great deal of anti federalist feelings. Another major disagreement was about Hamilton's idea of creating a national bank modeled after the bank of England. This bank eould would printy paper money and provide a stable national currency. Jefferson, a strict believer in following the constitution strictly believed that a national bank would be unconstitutional. Jefferson believed that these financial powers belonged to the states because they had not been outlined inthe constitution as a federal responsiblity.The success of Hamilton's centralized revenue raising policies caused resentment nd an eventual organized opposition. This is how these differing ideas led to the formation of political parties, and their differences were outlined even greater through the years when issues such as foreign policy came into play.

The factors that contributed to the development of political parties in the United States during the 1790's were tensions between Hamilton and Jefferson, a division of states in their wants, and a mistrust of a power and centralized government. Hamilton was a man vigorous to make a change in the economy and over all welfare of the United States. He proposed that the federal government absorb all state debts, he proposed some minor tariffs, and he wanted the federal government to have it's own bank. Jefferson opposed this saying that the constitution clearly makes banks a state matter and Hamilton argued just the opposite. Those against Hamilton's plans were so because they seemed to benefit the rich more and they seemed unconstitutional. Those for his plans saw them as benefiting the whole economy, a way to keep the states unified and a way to use bothersome debt as a positive. Many states feared that the federal government would get too powerful and that the country would be controlled by those at it's head. When those that agreed with Hamilton and those that agreed with Jefferson evolved into opposing parties, it stuck. This happened because the party that is not in power would keep in check the party that is in power, so that the government is never in the control of people with all of the same goals and interests.

One of the main factors that contributed to the development of political parties in the United States during the 1790s was resentment towards Hamilton's revenue-raisinig and centralized policies. Hamilton's sucesses, including the excise tax, the bank, the suppression of the whiskey rebellion, and funding, strongly enroached on state rights. The anti-Hamilton sentiment began to build, creating stiff resentment. Jefferson and Madison, two political leaders who had previously opposed Hamilton, began to organize opposition against Hamilton. As the opposition to Hamilton spread, the two sides began to resemble primitive forms of political parties. Eventually, these two opposing groups with different ideas and views evolved into political parties--Jefferson's Democratic Republicans and Hamilton's Federalists.

Although the development of political parties during the 1790s was originally due to Alexander Hamilton's financial and economic regulations, it was greatly increased with the introductory of foreign affairs with France and Britain. The emergence of political parties began with Treasury Secretary Hamilton's financial proposals about national and state debts and duties and taxes. His debt plan , however winning the favor of states with large debts, created resentment from states with small debts. Furthering resentment, his customs duties and excise tax, putting tariffs on foreign trade and tax on some domestic items including whiskey, respectively, led to the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. The rebels, who deeply defied the taxes and assaulted revenue officers, regarded the excise tax as a burden to an economic necessity of their's. Finally, the issue over a national bank formed a strong border between Jefferson, who believed what the Constitution did not specifically authorize was reserved to each individual state to decide, and Hamilton, who viewed that what the Constitution did not forbid it permitted. All of these led to a separation, divided by Fedarlists and Jeffersonians, within the country on domestic affairs which would, more or less, give way to differing views on foreign affairs.The French Revolution further stimulated the development of political parties. Federalists feared what was happening in the Reign of Terror in France, while Jeffersonians felt that, however terrible it was, it was a necessary price to pay. Even more furthering the split was the Neutrality Proclamtion from the once-allied France. Many Jeffersonians were outraged by this act, especially with Washington's inability in consulting Congress. However, most Federalists felt this position was necessary. Adding more to the nation's political gap was John Jay's Treaty with Britain, which essentially gave Britain the right to make future maritime seizures and impressments and bound the United States to pay debts from pre-Revolutionary times. Jeffersonians reacted extremely negatively to this believing this treaty to be a straightfoward surrender to England and an unequal mix of conditions involving Federalists being repremanded and Jeffersonian South forced to repay debts.

During the War of 1812, many weakness were exposed in the American government. With attacks coming from many different regions, it crippled the small scattered inexperienced American military. Proving a federal military, or an increase in the state militia was very needed. Another conclusion which came from the varied attack points was that the Americans were going to finally move west, however the war did not help settle the dispute between Americans and Native Americans, because no land was gained or lost during the war, and the Native Americans were left out of the eventual peace settlement between England and America.

The factors that contributed to the development of political parties in the United States during the 1790s were the imposed tariffs and idea of a federal bank of Alexander Hamilton, opposed views during the Constitutional convention about the division of state and federal government, different interpretation of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton was a very popular figure during the Constitutional Convention of 1789 where he opposed the Anti-Federalist view of some states and expressed his ultraconservatism. He wanted to relieve the nation’s debts by imposing favorable policies on the wealthy class in return for financial support of the government. He also proposed an idea of a national Bank which would hold the money and issue money for all the states. Thomas Jefferson as well as other delegates from the South opposed the creation of a federal bank because creating the bank would go against the constitutional laws and would give the federal government too much power. If the government would gain too much money, they would become corrupted and dictator like instead of democratic. From this issue, debates rose and slowly, different views were created as well as different political parties. Many politics interpreted the Constitution differently, as to provide support for their own personal views.

A conflict between archrivals Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson led to the creation of the first true American politcal parties. Hamilton, a "financial wizard" first action that made Jefferson "reluctant" was to pressure federal government into "assuming" debts for the war including state debts. Next he proposed a bank, much similar to the Bank of England. This would solve the problem of printing money and would make the American dollar worth something. But Jefferson ruled it unconstitutional, maintaining a "strict construction" viewpoint, that the constitution should be taken literally. He argued that Hamilton's proposition was not mentioned in the constitution. Whats more he argued that it should be left up to the states to decide on such matters (Amendment X). Hamilton counterargued that what the constution did not forbid it permitted. He held to the viewpoint of loose construction; he drew from the clause that "stipulated" that Congress was permitted to pass any law that made common sense and carried out the purposes of the nation. In other words, the constitution allowed this national bank because it made sense. Although the national bank was installed this disagreement led to the creation of two political parties, and two opposing ideas.

Hamilton’s financial regulation in funding, assumption, exercise tax, the bank had contributed to the development of the political parties in United States during 1790s. Although his political philosophy rested, in the true colonialist fashion, on the notion of the “the public good” and the superiority of a government derived its power from consent of the governed: the essence of the republicanism. His economic plan had provoked the worst fears of many anti-federalists as it stressed on a strong centralize government. In his argument with Jefferson, he believed that government should empower to collects taxes and regulate trade. Implicitly, he also invoke that government should be proactive in the military affairs, have the power to supersede the lower government (as at the state level). The most confrontations came above Hamiliton proposal of assumption, where he urged the congress to “fund” the entire nation debt “at par” and assumed completely the debts incurred by states during the recent war. Divide seems unreasonable and unjust because for state like Virginia had paid off much of their debt, would burden the same as Masachusetts which was heavily in debt. Moreover, the proposal contended to overly restricted the power of the states, and that internal taxation required by the assumption would arise the social liabilities. At the time, the failure of Hamilton economic system gave the republican an ample opportunity to launch the compaign designto bring down the Secretary. Because some of his unjustified decision, a split occurred between, and within the political power.

Political parties were a largely unknown entity before the 1790s in America. Before there had only been guidelines under which a voter could vote; essentially political allegiances. But political debates in America sparked organized opinions. As soon as he was appointed Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton began his hard work in shaping national economics. He strove to use the debt as as unifying figure and developed customs duties and excise taxes, the latter affecting most importantly whiskey trade. These economic plans were not only a way to stabilize the nation and allow for more prosperity but actually a way to shape politics. The policies imposed hinged on constitutional allowance which was hotly debated, especially between Hamilton himself and Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State. Jefferson argued that the Hamiltonian policy infringed on the Constitution and imposed upon state's rights which Hamilton loosely interpreted the Constitution in order to justify the legality of his ideas. The economic policies put forth by Hamilton and the dissenting opinion of Jefferson became nationally understood viewpoints. What was before a personal battle between the two cabinet-members became a political rivalry. Since the debate was so deeply rooted in the fundamental understanding and working of the new state, formal political allegiances began to form in Congress thus creating political parties.

What factors contributed to the development of political parties in the U.S. during the 1790s?

The development of political parties in the U.S. was due to the argument between Hamilton and Jefferson on the issue of commerce. Hamilton proposed for a national treasury, to be a private institution modeled after the Bank of England, to have the federal government as a major stockholder, to circulate cash to stimulate businesses, to store excess money, and to print money that was worth something. This was opposed by Jefferson, who thought that banks should be a state controlled aspect. Hamilton won, and Washington reluctantly signed the bank measure into law; the Bank of the Untied States was created by Congress in 1791, and was chartered for 20 years. Hamilton’s policies (national bank, suppression of Whiskey Rebellion, excise tax) had seemed to encroach on states’ rights. As resentment grew, what was once a personal rivalry between Hamilton and Jefferson gradually evolved into two political parties.

The factors that contributed to the development of political parties in the United States during the 1790’s were largely due to Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s financial successes, such as The Bank of the United States and public credit, that Thomas Jefferson disputed against, building oppositional organizations that eventually evolved into two distinct parties. Hamilton first intended to shape the policies of administration so that they would favor the wealthy, who would consequently lend support to the government. To bolster national credit, he suggested that the federal government pay off its debts. Furthermore, when Hamilton proposed for a national treasury, Jefferson argued against the charter for a central bank, insisting that such power should be granted to the state government rather than the federal, conforming to the idea strictly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The building of oppositional organizations was a result from the two aforementioned financial feats of Hamilton; though the government had a sound credit rating, Hamilton’s centralizing successes created political liabilities and encroached upon states’ rights. The factions were confined to activities in Congress and were expected to be short-lived, since a formal party against ideals would destroy unity and loyalty found after the Revolution and pitted Jefferson and James Madison’s ideas against Hamilton’s. Thus, the development of political parties in the United States during the 1790’s was a result of Hamilton’s financial successes that emphasized the central government, rousing organization of opposition by Jefferson that the same successes created political liabilities.

Is any of this planned to be pushed back? Supposedly we will have had 4 documents to be read by tomorrow but none of these seem to be posted. I don't recall this calendar being posted over the weekend.

Monday, October 8, 2007

The Articles of Confederation were adopted so that the thirteen colonies could deal with problems common between them. Each state had one vote, all bills needed a two-thirds vote and a amendment to the actual Articles needed a unanimous vote ( which hardly ever happened). Each state had it's own judicial system and could place whatever taxes they wanted on items coming in and going out. The Articles of Confederation were meant to unify the colonies and show that they were serious about independence and creating a new form of government. They were the first attempt at some sort of constitution for all the colonies. The Articles had little power in dealing with individual colonies and could not do anything but advise and appeal. They were not given much power for the fear that congress would abuse it, because of this lack of power ( and a judicial system) the Articles of Confederation themselves did not work as a effective form of but they led to the Constitution that did.

The Articles of Confederation were adopted to formally unite the newly independent states in America and provided a central, however weak, government for the former colonies.The United States of America were not so "united". Although they were joined together in a war against common grievances, the states were not united as a country. Many states resented one another and each had their own different constitutions. The Second Continental Congress then created the Articles of Confederation, to serve as a loose union of these differing states. They joined the states' common portions in their constitutions to form a weak central government. The Articles of Confederation, although a significant step towards a strong federal Constitution, were, in itself, a very weak structure of central government. However they were an effective form of government in the sense of catering to the newly indepedent states' wants and needs. These Articles did not give Congress much power and lacked the ability of national control of commerce regulations and taxation. Despite these failures, the Articles were very useful in beginning to unite the states. These former colonies had just fought a war against a strict and harsh government. What they wanted least was to fall under another strict and harsh government. The Republic under the Articles was loosely regulated, but very content. They kept alive the unity of the states and provided a new movement for a stronger federation.

The thirteen colonies after declaring independence needed something to unify them and to set the foundation for a nation. This document became the Articles of confederation, it mearly set out a very lose form of government that would unify the colonies under common issues. As a goverment however the articles were barly functioning. With out nessesary power such as the abbility to control taxes or to inforce nearly any laws within a state the Articles didnt really unify the colonies into anything other than a treaty. A new nation could not really appear until the colonies had some substantial governing body with the power to regulate economic ans well as forigen affairs.

The Articles of Confederation were adopted to, for the first time ever, bind all of the thirteen colonies into thirteen states. It united the colonies as one country for the first time ever. It gave the colonies one voice on the issue of foreign affairs, but did very little outside of that. In that way, it was a very ineffective doctrine. It laid out plans for a weak congress, but no other branches of government, let alone checks and balances. The biggest issues occurred in trade, where the voice was anything but united. All the colonies collected their own taxes set their own tariffs, and often used their own money. Because of this, it was not a very effective document for creating a new nation, however it was a first step which was very important. Also, it is important to remember that it would have been just short of impossible to come up with a document as revolutionary as the constitution. If the Articles were more stable than they were, yet still not as much as the constitution, the nation may have held onto these weak articles, making the nation weak itself and dividing its voice over the state. Instead, the complete and total inefficiency of the Articles spurred it to be scraped completely and to start from scratch, making something with a stronger central government, the constitution.

The Articles of Confederation were adopted to unite and govern the 13 colonies and deal with issues such as foreign policies. The Articles were an inadequate form of government for the colonies because it was very hard to pass a motion due to the policy in which all motions required two thirds vote to be passed. Also, due to the sovereignty of the states, each state had its own laws and constitutions, so the Articles could not govern the group of states very precisely at all. All of these issues were reasons for congress to develop a constitution for the United States.

The purpose of the Articles of Confederation was to keep the new nation unified for joint action in dealing with common problems, such as foreign policy, until the states were "mature" enough for a constitution and a sturdy government. The Articles can easily be seen as a failure, but their accomplishment lies in the fact that they outlines the general powers that were to be exercised by the central government, and paved the road to our present day constitution. Congress was purposefully designed to be weak because americans had no desire to give up their newly acquired privileges, even to a 'parliament' of their own making. And so it was that the states had too much individual power, thus, congress was unable to regulate commerce or to enforce its tax-collection program. The goal was to keep the states unified, and the Articles of Confederation did accomplish this, but thats about all it did. Times would eventually call for the states to give up their sovereignty to a federal government and, for the most part, only deal with local affairs.

The Articles of Confederation were adopted because they intended to unite the thirteen American colonies and to support the issue of foreign relations. These articles united the colonies because they gave Congress the right to rule. Unfortunately, this act by Congress was not widely supported by the general American public. The idea that all colonies were equal distorted the colonists, since each colony, even Rhode Island, was given one vote. The Articles of Confederation were a bad example of a successful government. The main reason for the lack of success was that there was insuficient funding. The colonies did not pay there taxes in full, thus disallowing this primitive form of government to rapidly develop. Instead, it stayed as a Democracy that did not have a strong sense of equality and a leader. Although these Articles were very weak, they did develop into today's Democracy.

The Articles of Confederation were part of a giant milestone in American government, even though the initial attemped was very poor. At first, the Articles didn't work very well, since 2/3rd voting made conflicts and decisions difficult to handle, since not all of the 13 colonies agreed on solutions. It helped bring the colonies together somewhat, giving them all a main government, helping to prove to Britian and France that they were capable of governing themselves. Even though the Articles of Confederation were not considered to be anywhere near a good form of overall law, the Articles paved the way for the need to better the government and laws in the newly founded United States.

The Articles of Confederation were adopted to form a bond between the thirteen colonies and to convince France that they were capable to govern themselves. However the Articles only loosely linked the thirteen states together. There was no executive power, because they wanted to avoid someone such as Gorge III from gaining power at all cost. There were many insufficient things about the government one was that every state had one vote no matter how many people lived in it. The amount of taxes states were expected to pay did not take in consideration how much land the state consisted of, which caused many complaints. It also did not give the central government much power or protection at all, which made it mostly ineffective. But the Articles had to be free and very open, in order to make all the states agree, even then it took four years to get Maryland to agree to it. In any case the Articles of Confederation were an important and necessary step, because they laid the foundation for a republic by “outlining the general powers that were to be exercised by the central government”(p. 173).

The Articles of Confederation were adopted with the goal of uniting all thirteen of the newly established states on certain issues, namely foreign policy. The Articles held a representative congress made up of members from all thirteen of the states. All measures had to receive 2/3 vote (which rarely they did). The Articles of Confederation maintained sovereign power within each state. Therefore they could not govern any of the citizens or policies within any state. The Articles simply formed as a way to connect the Unites States of America. The Articles of Confederation were a poor form of actually governing. The 2/3 vote factor made every initiative very hard to pass. In fact, the Articles of Confederation did not allow for very much governance at all. States had their own constitutions and economic laws. The economic policy differences in all of the states was a large example of the ineffectiveness of the Articles. Since all tariff systems and values were different, inter-state trade was incredibly difficult and the congress put in place by the Articles of Confederation had no say or power to correct or aid in these problems, thus showing that the document was nearly useless in true governance of anything.

The Articles of Confederation were the early brimstones of the legislative, executive and judicial bodies of the U.S. government. They were meant for setting the Congress for rule and giving the Congress just enough power to govern the states. That, however, was little to no power at all. No state wanted to be governed by the congress and the problem of representation was always debated. The Articles of Confederation was a very weak start but a start nevertheless of a new American constitution. It also represented a friendship that was formed between states even though the states didn’t exactly agree on the policies and laws of other states. The Articles of Confederation were not a very effective form of government for the colonies because they didn’t enforce their laws and rules strongly, they didn’t bring the states together like they should have, and they didn’t provide the states a common ground on which wise and diplomatic decisions could have been made. Fro example, under the Articles, there was no congressional power over commerce, Congress had no authority to act directly upon individuals and no power to coerce states. That meant that the Articles didn’t give Congress adequate power to rule the nation or to bring the former colonies to their former glory, before the Revolution.

The Continental Congress of 1776 called upon colonies to draft new constitutions, which began the formation of the Articles of Confederation. One of the reasons that the people called for a reform is the Congregational church. It continued to be legally established by some New England states, but the Anglican Church was humbled and reformed as the Protestant Episcopal Church. Furthermore, slavery was a big, problematic issue, as the Continental Congress of 1774 had called for the abolition of slavery. Another issue was women: they still were unequal to men. All of them deliberately created weak executive and judicial branches, because they distrusted power due to Britain’s abusive nature of it. The Articles had no executive branch, no leader to govern, and a pitifully weak Congress in which each state had only one vote, required 2/3 majority on any subject of importance, and a fully unanimous vote for amendments. Congress also could not regulate commerce or enforce tax collection. However, Congress was only a model of what a loose confederation should be, and was a significant step towards the establishment of the U.S. Constitution. Nonetheless, the Articles of Confederation made society more moral in terms of present-day morals; although having a weak Congress, they deemed a great power and is justifiable to the extent that the people had no disputes with it.

In 1786, the articles of Confederation became the uniting form of government within the thirteen states of the budding country. The Articles served as a bonding force, creating a common force against common problems in the states as well as to provide guidelines for trade and commerce. One of the pivotal parts of the Articles was the Congress, but it was incredibly weak because it had no method or income to enforce any of the Articles of Confederation. Specifically taxes, Congress frequently was insufficiently supplied because the states would not fully pay their taxes. On the other hand, the Articles of Confederation acted as a stepping stone towards the ratifying of the Constitution. As the members of Congress became more and more aware of the weakness' of the Articles, the delegates moved towards a stronger, sturdier set of laws. Overall, although the Articles of Confederation itself did not effectively govern the states, it led to a superior system of government.

The Articles of Confederation, drafted in 1796, were adopted in order to establish a single-chamber national Congress elected by state legislatures and establish states’ rights; though the Articles balanced power within states, the individual power each state had was the downfall of the Confederation due to the difficulty of uniform agreement and lack of economic power. The Articles of Confederation served as an effective form of government for the new nation because it included a congress that represented each colony, linked each state together for joint action dealing with foreign affairs. Also, the Articles protected the potential for an oppressive central government through the balance of power between states and was, for its time, a landmark in government and a step towards the present Constitution by outlining general powers and strengthening union. However, the downfall of the Articles was caused by the difficulty of uniform agreement and lack of economic control. The amending process was a struggle because unanimity was a requirement where each state had a single vote. Furthermore, it had no power to regulate commerce and could not enforce a tax-collection program, which proved to be a problem due to the varying tariffs and navigation laws each state was free to establish. Overall, the Articles of Confederation were an effective form of government for the new nation by its balance of power throughout the states, yet lacked unanimity and economic control.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

The Articles of Confederation was originally adopted by the thirteen colonies in order to form a stable government to deal with common problems among the colonies. The Articles sought to form a central force as well as to link the colonies together, which it did achieve to some extent. The central force was the Congress, but this force was incredibly weak and had no power on commerce or taxation. The Congress was designed to be weak purposely because the colonies were reluctant to give a central government too much power after having fought a war to free themselves of an overly powerful government, this is also why there was no executive branch. Thus the problem was that although Congress could pass legislations and call for a tax collection, there was no way to enforce it. Therefore The Articles of Confederation was not an effective system of government in the least bit, it allowed for too much individual power and no real unification on monetary laws specifically.Although the Articles of Confederation was largely ineffective with the governing of the thirteen colonies it did pave the way for the acceptence of a stronger central government and ratification of the new constitution. The Articles also clearly outlined the powers that should be exercised by the central government such as making treaties. Overall the Articles showed the need for a strong able central government. This means that although the Articles of Confederation itself did not effectivley govern the colonies, it led to a more effective system of government.

Why were the Articles of Confederation adopted and for what purpose? To what extent were the Articles an effective form of government for the colonies/the new nation?

The Articles of Confederation were adopted with the purpose that all 13 states could deal with common problems: namely foreign affairs. The Articles of Confederation enforced a Congress that although was weak, at the time was effective because the states were not ready to be subjected to another parties jurisdiction. However because each state did not yield their power to a sovereign federal government they could not deal with their local affairs. Also, all bills of importance required at least two thirds of the vote. However Bailey says, "this unanimity was almost impossible". Therefore because the amending process could not work, Congress later replaced the Articles of Confederation with the constitution. Also the Articles of Confederation's weak congress and "feeble national government in PA" gave each state pretty much complete control over their own affairs. In time however the states needed "a complete recast federal government to leave them free to control their local affairs".So even though the Articles held the states together and created a unified front in foreign affairs, it was not the strongest form of government. But without this stepping stone the transition from the revolutionary, autonomous and chaotic colonists to the constitution would never have happened.

The Articles of Confederation were created to allow the 13 states of America to present a unified front when dealing with European powers such as Britain. Yet they were largely a failure when it came to building a centralized war-making government. The Articles allowed Congress to make important decisions, but the latter had no power to enforce them, and there was also a requirement for unanimous approval before any change in the Articles was to be made. Congress was also denied the power of taxation, for it could only request money from the states and not impose it as law. Most of the time, the states didn’t pay in full, which left the confederation short of needed resources. The war had left the states and Congress in debt, further complicating the matter in finances. However, the Articles of Confederation proved to be a vital part of what was to be the ratified constitution: it allowed politicians and congressmen to see what kind of power the constitution needed and what kind of power was needed to enforce that Constitution. In the end, the Articles were largely ineffective yet provided a stepping stone for the things to come.

Saturday, October 6, 2007

Why were the Articles of Confederation adopted and for what purpose? To what extent were the Articles an effective form of government for the colonies/new nation?

The Articles were adopted as the first "constitution" of America. It linked the 13 states together for joint action in dealing with common problems. However, the Articles were very weak and provided only a "firm league of friendship." Congress had no power to regulate commerce, and had to ask the colonies if they could donate money. The government could not command or act directly on the individual states and citizens, and it could not even "protect itself from gross indignities." Even though the Articles of Confederation had many defects and flaws, it was a significant stepping stone to the present constitution. It kept the states together and outlined powers exercised by the government. It was a landmark, in those days, and was a model of what a confederation ought to be.

After the Revolutionary War in America, the Articles of Confederation was adopted by the congress. It was aimed at creating a stable government. It gave the states the power to make their own laws. But Subquently, the confederation exercise limit power in dealing with its independent state. The passing of all bills required a unaimous vote, any amendment of the Article itself required the ratification of thirteen state. At the core of the new constitution was enduring conflict between a perpetual union and state sovereignty, never clearly resolved. The Confederation had no independent executive or judiciary, no federal power of taxation or raising revenue, no power to operate directly on individual citizens. The Confederation had to depend on the willingness of the states to comply with congressional requisitions, and the willingness of the state governments to enforce measures to secure American interests. Cause by America fear in the 1770s of a central and powerful government, as a first written constitution of the Republic, was a less effective government for the new nation, in which it wielded no constitutional power at all. Weak as it was, the Aricles of Confederation proved to be landmark and kept to inpire a establishment of tightly knit confederation.

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

I believe that mob action is not justifiable. In the colonies themselves, the actions of the colonists was unjustifiable. The colonists had gone against the British, just as a child goes against their parent. Britain was the country that had created America, and helped shape it into what it was in the 1770s through its great sacrifice of bullion. Britain had paid for the colonization of the United States, and then expanded by Westward after which it paid soldiers to protect the colonists from Natives. In turn, they believe that the colonists should only pay a small fraction of the war costs - a fraction that did not even create an effect on them. They wanted to tax the colonists on the selling of cheaper tea, but because greed paid a major factor in the exploitation of Britain, the colonists rebelled. In this instance, rebellion is bad because the colonists were not fighting for civil rights since they were not in any immediate danger. Thus, it was unjustifiable for the colonists to use mob tactics.

it is not justifiable for the colonists to take mob action against lawful measures just because they deem them harmful or illegal. If this were true, there would be no point of having any laws because it would make more sense just to have something more along the lines of a set of rules. However, in this case, the colonists were being taken advantage of, and because they wanted a revolution and to be independent anyways, it is justifiable because they are going to start a war anyways.

Rebellion is not justifiable because the basis of rebellion lies in harm and destruction. Most rebellions, in essence, are done by fighting the proposed tyrant and shedding the losers (but this is not always the case, for example, the less Revolution). Rebels use propraganda and shadowy tactics to recruit the masses in their cause, yet many of the recruits still don't entirely understand that the fight for freedom that they were recruited for is actually a simple rebellion against a ruler who is unfair to one or a few factions of his subjects. That is the second point, that typical rebellions usually do not lie in very extreme matters, such as the restriction of human rights or tyrannic acts, but sooner lie in personal grudges of the leaders and simple disputes over things such as territorry or money. InAlso, the statement that "rebellion is a great crime - unless it succeeds." is a perfect description of any kind of rebellion, because it reiterates the point that history is written by the victors. Continuing with this logic, any rebellion involves some sort of battle, which would resolve with a winner and a loser. Obviously, the winner will

Mob action is not only justifiable but some times nessecary when attempting to inact a change. Resonably a riot is not always nessecary and should be avoided if at all possible but taking mob action against someting is often the only way anying is ever changed. This is esspecially true in countries were the goverment is infact not a democracy, since in these countries mob action is one of the only ways to get the goverment to change something. Yet America which is considered a democracy resorting to mob action is often the way change comes about. Based on the principle that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unaliabel rights any time those rights are justified people have the right to resort to mob action. Many movments throughout history have only become realities through mob action such as civil rights movement and countless other revolutions through out history.As for the statment "rebbelion is a crime unless it is sucsessfull" nothing could be more true. Through out history as groups of people rise up either there rebelion is crushed making them simply a minor glitch in histroy or the rebellion is sucsessfull and thus they are glorified as the founders of a new idea. This is supported by events in history such as the civil war, the confederate states were treated like criminals because they lost yet if they had won then it is very likely that they would now be there own country.

I believe that a mob action is sometimes needed, but only if there is a true need for it and all other options have been exhausted. This was a case where many would agree that immediate action was needed, in a different method than those which have already failed to work. However, the colonies were founded for the economic benefit of Great Britain, most of the immigrants accepted this,but the future generation would be haunted by their ancestors decision. Even though most colonists did not think in the same way as the British, they had done nothing wrong, they were using the colonies the way they expected when the colonies were settled. My opinion on rebellion is not at all like the quote "rebellion is a great crime, unless it succeeds." I feel that is a humans right to fight for what they believe in and nobody can tell them otherwise. Rebellion should never be considered a crime, because if a rebellion fails, it is most likely that it had never caught on so it was never able to create an impact on the subject being rebelled against.

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

One cannot blame the British for taxing the colonists but at the same time, the colonists cannot be blamed for their reaction. The American colonies were founded for economic purposes. Jamestown was supposed to be a short-term profit scheme. But because GBR was distracted by war, they could not get the money they wanted of America. After the 7 world wars, they needed the money and so taxed the colonists. Because the colonies were left to sow their own seeds of democracy, and also because they had never really been taxed before, they were appalled by the taxes. They acted accordingly because they felt their original politics were being violated. It was Britains fault for leaving America to develop their own sense of identity and democracy.

Justice Among the RebellionMy personal opinion is that people who work together as a unified team, who are competing against another group of people who work together as a team, are opposing teams that always have some kind of rivalry; therefore, those teams vary in opinion. It might be justifiable to the rebel colonists to protect their own moral and social freedom, since they are indeed rebels, against an "evil" corporative government that thinks they are the one true god to everyone under origin of their own country. It might not be justifiable to Britain because the government political issues occur there in addition to Parliament trying to keep chaos from erupting in America. The colonists who, out of arrogance, harm the sea, and the natural environment in my personal opinion is not just; but the colonists, who, out of animal instinct, bring about a rebellion that is contradictory to an "orderly" law.

Rebellion is a great crime - unless it succeedsPeople's perspectives and opinions change when power arises over another, or when people think that some people do not appreciate this certain "perfect" society or idea. If rebellions fail, the government shall abolish all for revolutions against it, and shall put hate on the people who deny law; when it's permanent, the law shall say that the people against it and all ideas of it shall perish forever. If rebellions succeed, a new group of people shall take over power, and all rules will be according to them. After succession in power, all who used to hail to the government and law shall now hail to the leaders of the revolution. People would take into consideration that a new governmental law now existed over another. My personal opinion is that this phrase is not also opinionated, but a fact.

No, it is not justifiable for people to take mob action against lawful measures that they deem harmful or illegal. Firstly, it may be only a slight lawful measure that citizens merely do not completely agree with, in which mob actions are highly inappropriate. Even with large-scale disagreement on exceptionally serious topics, it is very inapt. If the subject is so fiercely violating so many peoples beliefs and ideas, they should take time and consideration in the matter, instead of just disorderly forming together and reeking havoc among it’s region. If the dispute is stressed enough, and exemplified in a composed, rational, sagacious manner, it is much more probable the overruling authorities will take note of the concern and listen too the people without negative repercussions. There is a very broad line between protest and mob-like proceedings. A mod is a large or disorderly crowd; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action (Merriam Webster Dictionary). Obviously, the mob is not trying to amend or abolish repressive laws, yet to blindly take out their angst upon whatever comes in their path. In addition to that, they are only debilitating their ultimate objective by epitomizing themselves as riotous and insensible. The solutions are protests, which are organized public demonstrations of disapproval (Merriam Webster Dictionary). Again, with organization and rationally, a group of people will accomplish the same, if not more than a mob, with drastically less depressing ramifications.

Whether mob action is justifiable, is in the eye of the beholder. A group of people might see the government as trying to strip them of their rights and freedoms and so they will mob in protest; while the government sees itself as trying to protect it's citizens and will see mobs as harmful to their plans. When people are being hurt or have their basic human rights taken from them ( and they did not commit some sort of crime) it is justifiable to rebel. Mob action usually causes more problems than it solves. Rarely do mobs ever produce positives for any side. Mobs are unplanned acts of passion, which is why they often get out of hand and innocents die. Planned rebellion on the other hand often produces wanted results or at the very least get a message out. Mob action may not be justifiable but protest and rebellion are in some cases. The colonist felt that the British had too much control over them. When the British taxed them, they ignored the taxes,hurt the tax collectors, smuggled illegal goods, and destroyed private property. Britain tried to punish the colonists by taking away their freedoms and governments, again the colonist rebelled. The British sent their men to crush the rebellions, which had little effect but to make them stronger and more violent. If the colonist had lost the American Revolution, they would have been punished severely, many would. be killed or tortured, people would have little or no rights, and colonists would be little more than slaves in their own homes; but the colonist did win the war. Which means that they succeeded in their rebellion so there was no price to pay for their crimes. Rebellion would have been a great crime if the colonist had lost and remained under British control, but since they won it was a remarkable act in the pursuit of freedom.

The rebellions of the colonists against the lawfull measures of its home country were justifiable because in the eyes of the collonists, England was in pursuit of control of a people that only wanted to be left alone. One can not always trust the ruling power to make honest decisions in the best interest of those goverened. Although English parliament had its reasons for passing certain restrictions on the colonies such as the Proclamation of 1763 and the Navigational laws, colonists were overshadowed by their sufferings to really recognize any moral basis for Englands actions. In debted by the ever so vigorously enforced mercantilist policies, the colonists were tired of following orders from a country that really no longer had any standing in their minds because of distance and extensive change, such as a large difference in social standing. England had become aggressive because the colonies were no longer following orders. The fact that the colonies were established to reap profits for its mother country, and that they had just fought a war for their behalf, justified any actions by parliament, whether or not the colonists themselves had a say. However, the colonists had never asked for the war to be fought. Although it probably saved them a lot of trouble, there was also the fact that England restricted them to trade only with them, in which case merchants couldnt find the most profitable exchanges. Colonial rebellion was justifiable because they fought for independence from a country that hadnt established them in the first place. They had left to start a new life, and England was attempting to suck anything and everything good from its "tenants".

Mob action can sometimes be justified when taken against lawful measures depending on several factors that contribute to the mob's action. Although laws are set in place, they can be unjust and set up specifically to opress a certain group, in most cases members of the mob. This applies to the revolution in the sense that the British government passed several acts that they saw as unjust. The revolution in itself was a large scale mob action but not as spontaneous and damaging. Though it occured quickly and caused harm to some, it was more well planned then the average mob outbreak. The organization of the outbreak allowed the revolution, once successful, to become much more controlled and led to the betterment of the country as a whole.

It is not always justifiable for the people to take mob action against lawful measures that they deem harmful or illegal because some lawful measures are true and just while others might be tyrannical and senseless. Violence is also not the best way to approach a change in a place because that is truly unjustifiable. Rebellion was a great crime and it shouldn’t be used to make the authority take notice. Once rebellion succeeds, there comes a chaos about following actions and questions follow about who would control and change the laws that were rebelled about. For example, during the American Revolution and especially in the beginning of it, the colonists were rebelling against the crown by tarring and feathering British officials, destroying British cargo, and humiliating the British troops stationed in the colonies. Mob action in this case helped the colonists achieve independence because not only were they persistent but also great in numbers, which made lives of the British in the colonies much more difficult. This rebellion succeeded and it became just and controlled. During the Revolution however, America was one big mess in terms of government and policies. Eventually, the colonists started to work together to build a new nation with new laws.

I was under the impression that we didnt have to post the consider question about justifying the American revolution until tomorrow because the entire week's chedule was shifted. Clarification would be appreciated

Actions of people who oppose lawful measures that they deem harmful or illegal are justifiable through ethics and the perspectives they take, yet may not cause successful results. The mob against something may be right, but as long as the lawful measure is prolonged, then it will always be viewed as the accepted standard. This is applicable to the American Revolution because, although the colonists wanted independence and lacked British recognition, rebellion was not fully accepted, such as the case with the loyalists and patriots. Although the rebellion caused harm and casualties to people, the American Revolution was a success and was justified through the majority of feelings of the colonists and should not be considered a crime; the British seemed to treat the Americans as assets to the economy of the crown rather than granting their wishes, leading to their demise.

The mob action of the American Revolution cannot be viewed as either justifiable or unjustifiable. There were too many factors at play. From the American point of view they fought the French and Indian War and once it was won they couldn't collect the spoils in order to make up for the loss of life and money. The reason the couldn't do so was a British policy, the Proclamation of 1763. From the British point of view, too much money had been already spent on one war to risk fighting another one on new territory. But the Americans felt that since Great Britain hadn't formally founded any of the colonies, why should they have the power to execute such orders. And then one must consider that the Britons just fought a WAR for the colonists so they should have some executive decision. And the colonists would refute that because THEY didn't make an enemy with France. And then the British would say that the colonists needed room to farm anyway. And then the colonists would point out that the British won't LET them farm and the cycle repeats itself. As one can see, the situation was a paradox with all parties just as much in the moral right as in the moral wrong so there is no way to define whether or not the American mob action was justifiable.

The statement "rebellion is a great crime unless it succeeds" is very correct but not surprisingly so. Rebellion will always be crime under the regime against which it is rebelling and could be viewed as criminal by a third party but if it is successful, it creates new laws. And if it continues then posterity will see it as lawful and NOT criminal because of a previously instituted notion.

No one wishes to believe their society the product of a crime so that notion is not considered whatsoever.

Is it justifyable for the people to take mob action against lawful measures that they deem harmful or illegal?

Yes, because if a lot of people is against it, then the lawful measures aren't going to work very well anyways. Also, the lawful measures probably are harmful if many people disagree with it, because they are in some way affected negatively by it; that's the reason why they don't like it.

Comment critically on the following proposition in light of the American Revolution: rebellion is a great crime--unless it succeeds

The rebellion of the Americans can be viewed either as treason or a brave attempt at justice, depending on how you define America. If you define colonial America as a part of Britain, and that there are still strong ties between them, then rebellion would be treason. However, if you view America as a different and separate nation, just controlled by another, then it would be a brave attempt at justice. Since Britain was basically exploiting the colonies for revenue, the American people had good reason to rebel; therefore there were weak ties between mother and daughter country, which leads to the conclusion that the rebellion wasn't a crime but rather justifyable.

Attached to themselves to the cause of the independence, with a spirit of the selfless devotion, bore the burden of the battle and the risk of the defeat, it is justified for all these colonists to rebel aganist the harmful lawful measures, and ensuing their own representation and political freedom. By the middle of the eighteenth century, British heavily levy of the taxation and restrict on trade had appearantly to destroy colonist very livelihood. In the interest of the empire , more and more of the planters or merchants were plunged in debt. Facing the impending of the economic crisis, of course America would revolt rather than submit to the far off dictates of the parliament. In a sense, colonist's fight had a certain moral legitimacy as the monarchical conspiracy had strip their liberties as English subject. Governments call actions terrorist to automatically code them as unjustified because they had brought upon the threaten to high authority. But one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. And just because these so call "rebel", American able to take their own stand and embrace an independence republic. Whether the rebellion is succeed or not, the spirit in pursuit of liberty, happiness is always admirable.

Monday, October 1, 2007

I am studying for the essay test tomorrow and I am having some trouble with completely understanding the question....... I do not really get the "politics IN OTHER AREAS OF AMERICAN LIFE." What does the question specifically mean by that? if someone could clarify cause I'm a little bit confused. Thanks.

What is This?

This is the amazingly useful blog for Ms. Chipman's 1st period AP US students at Lincoln Park High School. Here they will come to discuss, debate, question, and engage in the amazing process of learning U.S. History. All students will post questions and responses as directed by Ms. Chipman on a regular basis. They also will post questions, comments, and links on their own that are relevant to their class (including, of course, praise and accolades for Ms. Chipman).